Dismissed

Smt. Ambujamma v. M.R.Madhukar

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2023MFA/8367/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged the Trial Court's award of Rs 5,000 funeral expenses in a workman's death case. The High Court held that while Section 4(4) sets a minimum of Rs 5,000, it does not cap the amount if evidence is adduced. Despite lack of evidence, the appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal's award was consistent with the statute. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed for enhancement of compensation was dismissed. The order passed by the Tribunal awarding Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses was upheld.

Smt. Ambujamma Vs M.R.Madhukar — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43258 MFA No. 8367 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8367 OF 2017

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT AMBUJAMMA W/O LATE RAMESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,

¶7

2 KUMARI. R. LAKSHMI D/O LATE RAMESHAPA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS OCC: STUDENT SINCE THE 2^ND APPELLANT IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER-1ST APPELLANT HEREIN BOTH ARE R/AT DOOR NO.685/5 RAJAPPANA THOTA, SRIRAM EXTENSION NITUVALLI, DAVANAGERE - 577 002

¶8

…APPELLANTS

¶9

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI B.PURANDARA .,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M.R.MADHUKAR S/O M.K.RAJASHEKAR MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MADHU TRANSPORT R/AT DOOR NO.473, DAVANAGERE, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-17-17-A-4588,

¶13

THE MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: DOOR NO.823/7,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43258 MFA No. 8367 of 2017

¶15

TILUVALLI COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, PB ROAD, DAVANAGERE. POLICY NO.472100/31/2015/12538 VALID FROM 25.01.2015 TO 24.01.2016

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R-1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.24.10.2016 PASSED ON ECA NO.123/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & 5TH ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The LRs of the workman have filed this appeal aggrieved by the order passed in ECA No.123/2015, dated 24.10.2016 by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge & V Addl.MACT, At Davangere. They filed an application under Section-22 of the Workman Compensation Act (for brevity WC Act) seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the course of the employment.

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43258 MFA No. 8367 of 2017

¶22

The court below had awarded an amount of

¶23

Rs.8,88,680/-, towards loss of dependency and Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses. The LRs are before this Court aggrieved by granting of an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Learned counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to Section-4(4) of the Employees Compensation Act. As per the same the amount should not be less than Rs.5,000/- that doesn’t mean that above Rs.5,000/- no amounts can be granted. It is submitted that they have spent lot of amounts towards funeral and other ceremonies and the court below ought to have granted a reasonable compensation.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that as per Section-4(4) of EC Act, the court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- as it states that is should not be less than Rs.5,000/- and he submits that if it is the case of the claimant that he had spent more than Rs.5,000/- he

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:43258 MFA No. 8367 of 2017

¶27

should have adduced evidence in this regard and no such evidence has been adduced by the appellant.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel on either sides, perused the entire material on record. Before going to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant it is appropriate to have a look at Section-4(4) of the EC Act, which reads as follows:

¶29

"4(4) If the injury of the [employee] results in his death, the employer shall, in addition to the compensation under sub-section (1), deposit with the Commissioner a sum of [not less than five thousand rupees] for payment of the same to the eldest surviving dependant of the [employee] towards the expenditure of the funeral of such [employee] or where the [employee] did not have a dependant or was not living with his dependant at the time of his death to the person who actually incurred such expenditure;]"

¶30

A bare perusal of the said provision makes it

¶31

clear that the compensation towards funeral expenses

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43258 MFA No. 8367 of 2017

¶33

should not be less than Rs.5,000/- that does not mean that maximum only Rs.5,000/- can be awarded. If necessary evidence is adduced the court basing on the evidence can consider the same. In this case admittedly no evidence is adduced by the appellant and the tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.5,000/- in consonance with Section-4(4) of the EC Act and this Court finds no reasons to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶34

i) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶35

ii) No costs.

¶36

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶37

closed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Smt. Ambujamma v. M.R.Madhukar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ambujamma v. M.R.Madhukar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vidya Veni Vs Rajesh

Smt. Suma Vs Sri. Ramadas B

Sri Raju @ Basavaraju Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. H. R. Ramachandra Vs the Managing Director

Sri.B.v.Mainuddin Vs Ashoka

Smt. Lalitamma Vs the Authorised Signatory Iffco Tokio General Insurace Co. Ltd.